The 2010 ASPSU elections have come and gone, establishing a firm place in the history of the university as an example of student apathy and the failure of reason. As students are probably aware, junior Katie Markey was elected student body president for the 2010-2011 academic year, and will assume her office in June.

What made history was not her election, but the manner in which she was elected; Markey received a whopping 432 votes out of the 701 that were cast. For a university with a student population of 28,000, that means only 2.5% of students bothered to vote in the election. This was the lowest turnout since 1998.

What is particularly shocking about the turnout is that the ASPSU was involved in controversial restructuring efforts of the PSU administration and financial regulations. At times, the dialogue between the administration and the ASPSU became heated. The ASPSU held rallies in protest of lack of student involvement in the process. Traditionally, few things drive voter turnout like controversy, especially that which surrounds issues of fundamental importance to students. As the restructuring of Portland State affects all students through tuition and taxation, questions begin to arise concerning why students didn't turn out for the election.

One clue is that few students knew about the elections at all. Comments on an article announcing elections results on the Daily Vanguard's website are revealing. Students expressed surprise that an election even happened. While student media covered the election ad nauseam, the fact remains that few students were aware of the impending election. Clearly there is a serious lack of communication on campus.

One of the likely culprits are rules that govern student elections, such as the prohibition against campaigning in certain places on campus. “We were not allowed to campaign in the dorms,” Markey told the Rearguard in a recent interview. Compare this to other universities, like Northeastern University, a commuter college similar in size to PSU that allows campaigning in student housing facilities. This, along with other restrictions, drives down voter turnout and a dwindling number of students bother to vote. These rules are meant to preserve quality of life in student housing, but the real effect disenfranchises student voters by not allowing them to meet student leaders, a component that is critical to the spread of information critical to the elections process.

The problem is that the elections board, which oversees elections rules, has shown no real leadership on this issue. If this continues, next year's elections are likely to have even lower voter turnout, not from lack of interest but from lack of knowledge. Commuter colleges traditionally suffer from low voter turnout, but nothing like PSU’s experiences year after year. The integrity and legitimacy a democratic system is compromised when a gross minority of students decides who will make policy and spending decisions that affect all students. This has nothing to do with the candidates, but it has everything to do with the rules that govern their campaigns.